Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:20:40 02/18/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2006 at 14:32:40, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>On February 18, 2006 at 13:18:26, George Tsavdaris wrote:
>
>>On February 18, 2006 at 07:07:43, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>>
>>>On February 18, 2006 at 05:51:45, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am expecting Rybka to get a SSDF list Elo about 150 points above Shredder 9,
>>>>but in May/June it will not be no. 1 anymore.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yet another ridiculous expectation of yours.
>>>We're getting used to it.
Michael,
let's comments your claims:
>>
>>He is expecting 2 things:
>>1)Rybka will be 150 points above Shredder 9.
THE SSDF RATING LIST 2006-02-10 %105197 games played by 275 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2853 26 -25 835 71% 2701
2 Hiarcs 10 HypMod 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2845 33 -31 559 75% 2652
3 Shredder 9.0 UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2815 23 -22 1035 69% 2675
I am claiming that Rybka 1.2 should be about 2965 points when tested.
My claim is based on the following:
1. Rybka version 1.02 beta was about 100 points stronger than Shredder 9.
2. Rybka version 1.13d is stronger, maybe some 40 points.
3. Rybka will be improved in the endgame starting from version 1.14
4. Rybka version 1.2 will have a strong opening book specifically made for it by
one of the best book makers (Jeroen Nooman; I hope the spelling is correct)
all this togethe should score about 150 points above Shredder 9 in the SSDF
list.
I use "about" because I am too busy to make specific tests and it insteat of 150
it is 140 or 160 it would not be that different.
I am not the only one to expect this.
P.N. "Expect" means that for me this is achivable, but I am not making it so it
depends on some one else work...do you understand what I mean?
this is the latest
>>2)Rybka will not be no1 in May/June.
Yes, I am expecting some program to improve a lot thanks to weaknesses shown by
Rybka which will be fixed and using the experience made by these programmers
which are in the field since several years they will inprove their programs a
lot.
P.N. I said programmers and not "programmer" so I am not referring to SMK only.
>>
>>In what expectation are you refering as ridiculous?
>
>Both, I seriously doubt Rybka will come close to 2965 at SSDF and
Well, if you would make tests 24 hours a day like me and having all the chess
programs which are available you would be a lot less doubtful...
>I understand 2) as "Shredder 10 will be rated more than 150 points higher than
>Shredder 9 in June".
I did not state this.
I said that another program will be no. 1 without mentioning Shredder...you
understood it that way...read my post again.
I believe SMK can do it, but this is based on my evaluation of his ability and
knowledge as well as on the time he can spend on this.
I am not sure the time he can spend will be enough, yet.
Still I am expecting other programmers to improve a lot too (if they want and
can spend enough time working on the engine).
>
>> Also by "yet", i conclude that you think he made in the past one or more
>>ridiculous guesses. Can you give an example.....?
>
>He predicted several times the next version of Shredder will improve
>by at least 50 points at SSDF.
This is a true lie.
Uri has stored all my claims on this and can tell exactly what I claimed.
Anyway I report here what I said to refresh your memory:
1. I said that I did not want to make any claim for Shredder 9 as people were
going to attack me even for 1 or 2 points less. I said that I had no time to
make a lot of tests to check correct info because I was too busy working on the
opening book, so I could only give indications/expectations and I was expecting
Shredder 9 to score about 30 points more than Shredder 8.
No the difference is 9 points, but Shredder 9 has been the program against which
all the others tested mainly and this means that at this point is clearly
handicapped in the score, so 9 more is quite good still as it should have been
much more lowered, but here the UCI gui did help to keep it ahead of Shredder 8
2. Shredder 8 surely suffered a little about this (being the main program to
test against) for long time and similar to Shredder 9, so the difference with
Shredder 7.04 was surely reduced.
In this case there is a difference also in the GUI used as the difference would
have been 20 or more points bigger if the CB gui would have been used.
If you check both version you soon realize that the UCI version play stronger
openings, being less wide in tournament mode, and the learning is better in UCI
gui too. Everybody testing these things would report the same.
>He also claimed the UCI version is IIRC about 35 points better than the CB
>version.
>
>Now lets have a look at reality:
>
> 3 Shredder 9.0 UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2815 23 -22 1035 69% 2675
> 5 Shredder 8.0 CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2806 23 -22 1115 71% 2649
> 6 Shredder 7.04 UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2802 22 -21 1175 68% 2670
I think that before making statements one should check the data and read them in
a realistic way rather than looking scores and numbers which anybody can do.
I understand that a lot of people are "too superficial", but too much is too
much...
>
>Michael
Sandro
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>Michael
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.